Presentation on the topic 'Comparative Analysis of Intention Theories' done as part of the requirement for the course "Philosophy of Research"

1. Relook on
“Comparative analysis
of intention theories”
Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar

2. Agenda
• Introduction to Intention theories
• Problem Identification
• Critique
• Conclusion

3. Intention Theories
Human
Intentions
Psychology
Cognitive
Science
Computer
Science
Philosophy
Social
Psychology
Folk
Psychology
 Use these theories to
build a conceptual
model for social tagging
systems

4. Normal Approach
• Go through the theories and compare them (not
paying much attention to discipline) using
dimensions such as Methodology, Research
Methods, Parent Theories, Citation History etc
• Select the one that appears closest to our research
context
• Build a conceptual model on top of the selected
theory
• Conduct research to see if the model fits
• ….

5. What’s the problem then?
• Which theory is complete?
• Which theory is universal?
• Which theory has empirical backing?
• Which theory has been extended by other
researchers?
• What assumptions do these theories take and what
are the implications?
• Does the nature of the discipline play a significant
role when assessing a theory?
• Are there any hidden dimensions that significantly
differentiates the selected theories?

6. Selected Theories
Theory of Reasoned Action
Theory of Planned Behavior
Folk Concept of Intentionality
Discerning Intentions in
dynamic human action
Intentionality of Intention and
Action
Belief Desire Intention model

7. Theory of
Reasoned
Action /
Theory of
Planned
Behavior
Folk Concept
of
Intentionality
Discerning
intentions in
dynamic
action
Intentionality
of intentions
and actions
Attitude towards
the behavior
Belief Desire
Intention
Model
Subjective Norms
Intention Behavior
Belief
Desire
Intentions Intentionality
Skill
Awareness
Belief
Desire
3 types of
Knowledge Structure Detection
Intentions
Belief
Desire
Intention Action
Belief
Desire
Prior Intentions Intentional Action
Perceived Behavior
Control
Game based
Experiment
Language
understanding
based Survey
Experiments
&
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Method Perspective

8. Discerning
intentions in
dynamic
action
Intentionality
of intentions
and actions
Belief Desire
Intention
Model
Theory of
Reasoned
Action /
Theory of
Planned
Behavior
Folk Concept
of
Intentionality
Assumptions
• Intentions are prerequisite for behavior -> CHALLENGED
Assumptions
• No prior knowledge of the person is needed to infer
intentionality -> CHALLENGABLE
• The questions try to infer the presence of the factors by
analysing the texts -> HIGHLY CHALLENGABLE
• Study is reliant on people's perception about human actions
• Everyone can interpret language in the same way -> HIGHLY
CHALLENGABLE
Assumptions
• Intentions are not isomorphic with action i.e. an
action can be related to many intentions
• An action is split into many steps
Assumptions
• Intention is mapped to a action
Assumptions
• No data given on how beliefs change -
CHALLENGABLE
• Desires are already known and fixed - DEBATABLE
CHALLENGABLE NATURE OF
ASSUMPTIONS
• Component
-based
• Language
-based
• Similarity in
people
• Component
–based
• Reality
-based
• Component
-based
• Component
–based
• Definition
-based

9. Discerning
intentions in
dynamic
action
Intentionality
of intentions
and actions
Belief Desire
Intention
Model
Theory of
Reasoned
Action /
Theory of
Planned
Behavior
Folk Concept
of
Intentionality
Weakness & Limitations (W&L)
• Behavioral intention is seen as “weighted sum” of two variables
Weakness & Limitations
• Perception of intentionality based only on western culture
• Uses explicated language for testing. Not reality based.
Weakness & Limitations
• Works only when action is observed from start to end
• Seemingly doesn’t differentiate between intention and
intentionality
Weakness & Limitations
• Generalistic
Weakness & Limitations
• Definition of Beliefs and Desires is not generalizable
• Intention is always seen as a commitment to the action
IMPLICATIONS
• Pro-positivism
• Universality is
affected
• Can be used in
linguistic
studies
• Generalizability
is affected
• Applicability
to online world
• Generalizability
is affected
PURPOSE OF
THEORY
PREDICTIVE
DESCRIPTIVE &
EXPLANATORY
DESCRIPTIVE
DESCRIPTIVE &
EXPLANATORY
DESCRIPTIVE &
EXPLANATORY

10. Cross-referencing
Theory of
Reasoned
Action/
Planned
Behavior
Discerning
intentions
from
dynamic
action
Intentionality
of intention
and action
Folk Concept
of
Intentionality
Belief
Desire
Intention
Model
Cognitive Science

11. Current Conclusions What assumptions do these theories take and what are the implications?
If the assumptions are Component-based , they cannot be taken lightly.
Universality and Generalizability factors are affected as a part of implications
of weakness and limitations of the theory.
 Does the nature of the discipline play a significant role when assessing a
theory?
Yes, the perspective and type of research methods are contingent on the
discipline. Type of evidence also differs – Empirical vs Conceptual
 Are there any hidden dimensions that significantly differentiates the
selected theories?
Perspective and ‘Nature of assumptions’ are two hidden dimensions that are
to be considered
 There cannot be a single intention model – there needs to be separate
intention and intentionality model for conducting research
 There is no single perfect model/theory but it is debatable to combine
components from models of different disciplines. They have to be tested if
combined.

12. Brickbats & suggestions…